Dharmveer Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145357

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4932 of 2025

Appellant :- Dharmveer Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gyan Chandra,Mamta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

In this case notice has already been served upon the informant.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Dharmveer Yadav to set aside the order dated 15.04.2025, in Bail Application No. 1163 of 2025 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2022, under sections 364,, 302, 201 IPC and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Badshahinaka, District Kanpur Nagar..

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record.

¶9

According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 11.10.2022 and its FIR has been lodged by mother of the deceased on 12.10.2022 stating therein that her son Virat Sonkar had gone any where without informing her, she made his search on many places, but his where about could not be known. Thereafter she lodged an FIR against the unknown person.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 19.10.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that appellant is not named in the first information report, but after four days of the incident his name has come into light in extra judidcial confession. According to post mortem examination report, contusion and hemotoma was found on the head of the deceased and cause of death is comma as a result of ante mortem head injury. The dead body of the deceased

¶11

was found in the Sulabh Sauchalaya and the appellant was only working there. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant or at his pointing. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside.

¶16

Let the appellant Dharmveer Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶21

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 RPD

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmveer Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmveer Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases